This Reformation audio resource is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. There is no copyright on this material and we encourage you to reproduce it and pass it on to your friends. Many free resources as well as our complete mail order catalog containing classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books at great discounts is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email at swrb at swrb.com, by phone at area code 780-450-3730, by fax at area code 780-468-1096, or by mail at 4710 37A Avenue Edmonton Alberta Canada T6L 3T5 if you do not have a web connection please request a free printed catalog. Tape 2 a collection of short quotes on instrumental music in the public worship of the church. Continuing quote number 13. This is really the crux of the matter for those espousing uninspired hymns. Where is the biblical institution for uninspired songs in public New Testament worship? Williamson is succinct and to the point in conjunction with this insurmountable obstacle faced by those promoting such an innovation. that is modern hymn singers. Quote, It is of no small importance that textual proof has never been demonstrated for the use of uninspired songs in worship. No one has yet found even a single scripture text to prove that God commands his church to sing other than the Psalms of the Bible in worship. And it is not because men have not searched diligently. A few years ago a committee of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church made such a search. This committee had a majority in favor of the use of uninspired hymns in worship and yet after an exhaustive search through scripture requiring a number of years to complete such proof could not be found. The committee chairman admitted that it is impossible to prove that uninspired songs are authorized in scripture. He even said that to demand such proof before one can in good conscience sing uninspired songs is to demand the impossible taken from the Presbyterian Guardian volume 17 page 73 this is a grave admission but it is no more than the facts require for the bare truth is that no one has found so much as a single text of scripture commanding the use of uninspired songs in divine worship and remember we are not to worship God in any other way not commanded in his word quoted from Williamson, Singing of Psalms, page 18. At this point, those promoting uninspired songs in worship are probably protesting that I have forgotten about Ephesians 5, verse 19 and Colossians 3, verse 16. But such is not the case. Having come out of that tradition, these scriptures were my first protest against the position that I now hold. So let's take a look at them. A lengthy quote from G.I. Williamson is most instructive here. Quote, the proper interpretation of scripture terms requires that we discover not what we mean by these terms when we use them today, but what the inspired writer meant when he used them. And it is one of the oddities of biblical interpretation that this rule is commonly observed with reference to the term Psalms and commonly disregarded with respect to the terms hymns and songs. For the fact is that all three of these terms are used in the Bible to designate various selections contained in the Old Testament Psalter. In the Greek version of the Old Testament, familiar to the Ephesians and Colossians, the entire Psalter is entitled Psalms. In 67 of the titles within the book, the word Psalm is used. However, in six titles, the word hymn is used rather than Psalm. And in 35, the word song appears. Even more important, 12 titles use both psalm and song and two have psalm and hymn. Psalm 76 is designated psalm, hymn and song. And at the end of the first 72 psalms we read that the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended. Psalm 72 verse 20. In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said psalms then when he said hymns and songs for the simple reason that all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself we are in the habit of using the terms hymns and songs for those compositions that are not psalms but Paul and the Christians at Ephesus and Colossae used these terms as the Bible uses them itself namely as titles for the various psalms in the Old Testament Psalter To us it may seem strange or even unnecessary that the Holy Spirit would use a variety of titles to describe His inspired compositions. But the fact is that He did so, just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, Deuteronomy 30 verse 16, etc., and of miracles and wonders and signs, Acts 2 verse 22, so He speaks of His psalms, hymns, and songs. As commandments, statues, and judgments are all divine laws in the language of Scripture, as miracles and wonders and signs are all supernatural works of God in the language of Scripture, so psalms, hymns, and songs are the inspired compositions of the Psalter in the language of the Scripture itself. The New Testament evidence sustains this conclusion. On the night of the Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn, Matthew 26 verse 30. Bible expositors admit that this was the second part of the Hallel Psalms, Psalms 115-118, which was always sung at the Passover, taken from New Bible Commentary page 835. Matthew called this psalm a hymn because a psalm is a hymn in the terminology of the Bible. To the same effect is the Old Testament quotation in Hebrews 2 verse 12, in which the Greek word hymn is quoted from Psalm 22 verse 22. In this quotation from an Old Testament psalm, the word hymn is used to denote the singing of psalms because the Old Testament makes no distinction between the two. But if scripture itself says that psalms are hymns and that hymns are psalms, why should we make any distinction between them? If we grant that the Apostle used biblical language in a biblical sense There is no more reason to think that he spoke of uninspired hymns in these texts, Colossians 3 verse 16, Ephesians 5 verse 19, than to think that he spoke of uninspired psalms because hymns are inspired psalms in the Holy Scriptures. Quoted from Williamson's Singing of Psalms, page 10 and 11. Furthermore, to reject Mr. Williamson's explanation regarding these verses leads to some major problems. We have already seen that no evidence exists that any uninspired hymns existed during the period when these verses were written. Only the inspired psalms, that is psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, were in use as public worship song at that time and no biblical command is found anywhere to produce additional songs above those already contained in the existing book of divine praise, the psalms. Is the regulated principle then in error? We think not. Why then were no new songs produced by the early church if these verses were understood to call for them? The apostles themselves did not produce any such songs, either inspired or uninspired, not even one that we know of, demonstrating that they did not interpret these verses as modern hymn singers do. to approach these verses by importing a modern meaning into the words, hymns, and spiritual songs, not only rests on very shaky ground, leaving much room for doubt, and in no way fulfilling the requirements of regulative principle for clear biblical warrant for worship practices, but would also destroy the basis for grammatical historical interpretation of scripture. Footnote. Regarding grammatical historical interpretation, Therefore we can see that Ephesians 5.19 and Colossians 3.16 cannot possibly mean what those opposing the position of exclusive psalmody say they mean because their interpretation does not fit any of the existing biblical or historical data. while the psalm singer's interpretation fits perfectly. Finally, and probably most importantly, Bushell has dug down to the root of the problem in the matter of human innovation regarding worship. Quote, arrogance, pride, and self-assertion are at the very heart of all attempts to find a musical replacement for the psalter. William Romaine makes some very pointed comments in this connection. to which advocates of an uninspired song and worship would do well to listen. Quote, I want a name for that man who should pretend that he could make better hymns than the Holy Ghost. His collection is large enough, it wants no addition. It is perfect as its author and not capable of any improvement. Why in such a case would any man in the world take it into his head to write hymns for the use of the church? It is just the same as if he were to write a new Bible not only better than the old, but so much better that the old may be thrown aside. What a blasphemous attempt! And yet our hymn-mongers, inadvertently, I hope, have come very near to this blasphemy, for they shut out the psalms, introduce their own verses into the church, sing them with great delight, and as they fancy, with great profit, although the whole practice be in direct opposition with the blessing of God." We see therefore that the sufficiency in divine origin of the Psalter are in themselves adequate arguments for its exclusive use in worship. As we have pointed out a number of times already, the very fact that the Bible contains a book of inspired psalms immediately places worship song in the same category as the authoritative reading of the scriptures in worship. The former is but the musical counterpart of the latter and as such is incompatible with the use of uninspired hymns in worship. Quoted from Bushel, Songs of Zion, page 102. Of course there are a number of other issues left untouched and yet to be dealt with in regard to this issue. Maybe we'll get to them in a future newsletter or book. Here I have only endeavored to introduce what I consider some of the most obvious aspects of the debate over public worship songs. I would strongly encourage all Christians, whether psalm singers or not, to read both G.I. Williamson's short pamphlet, The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God, available from Stillwater's Revival Books, and Michael Bushell's full-length treatment of this subject, The Songs of Zion, also available from Stillwater's Revival Books. As stated at the beginning of this short work, God has been pleased to revive psalm singing in the context of great revivals, and if the present trends are any indication of the direction of progress in the matter, I think we all have cause for rejoicing. Quote number 14, excerpted from Saul in the Cave of Adullam, a testimony against the fashionable sub-Calvinism of Doug Wilson, editor of Credenda Agenda magazine, and for Classical Protestantism and the Attainment of the Second Reformation by Reg Barrow, 1997. In our previous correspondence you had asked four questions regarding worship which I have yet to address. You said, I ask about David and the showbread, and bowing in the house of Rimman, and worshipping in a synagogue, and sacrificing only to the Lord in the high places. I will take up each question in order, giving short answers to each below. I've also answered one question you have raised outside of our discussions here. This question has to do with using Hezekiah's songs as a warrant for uninspired hymns in worship. First, in answer to David and the showbread, I don't see how transgressing a ceremonial law in the most extraordinary of circumstances hard cases make bad laws to fulfill a moral law that is the sixth commandment the duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies and lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others quoted from the Westminster Lord's Catechism answer number 135 would somehow overthrow or annul the duty to obey another moral law that is the second commandment or the regulative principle All 10 commentaries I checked are in essential agreement, but I think that Matthew Henry best gets to the heart of the matter when he writes, Ritual observances must give way to moral obligations, and that may be done in a case of necessity which otherwise may not be done. Taken from A Commentary of the Whole Bible, Volume 5, page 463. Henry is commenting on Mark 2, verse 25 and 26. Calvin on Matthew 12 verse 3 writes that the ceremonies of the law are not violated where there is no infringement of godliness that is the moral law for if David had attempted to do what was contrary to moral law it would have been in vain for Christ to plead his example. Matthew Pool on 1st Samuel 20 verse 5 states that ceremonial enactment must give place to the great law of necessity and charity, the law of love or the moral law, because God will have mercy preferred before sacrifice. The ceremonies of the law are not against the love of our neighbor quoted from side note on Matthew 12 verse 8 from the 1599 Geneva Bible or finally as our Lord said in answering this question and in rebuking the real Pharisees, those who added to the moral law and burdened men's consciences with man-made innovations and ceremonies, but if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." Matthew 12 verse 7. Second, in answer to bowing in the house of Rimen. Your question about Naaman's bowing in the house of Rimen is answered in Anderson's Alexander and Rufus on page 15. Anderson writes, quote, they who have justly withdrawn from the communion of any particular church on account of its corruption and yet allow themselves in the practices of occasional communion with the church in her public ordinances are far more involved in the guilt of its corruption the name in the Syrian was in the guilt of worshiping women when he bowed in the temple of that idol. For they cannot pretend that communion with such a church is no end of their attendance on her public ordinances, as Naaman pleaded that his intention in going to that temple of Rimen and being present there was not to worship the idol, but to serve his master. Grotius, indeed, and some other commentators justify or excuse the conduct of Naaman. But more candid interpreters hold that the indulgence which Naaman desired was unlawful, that there was such an appearance of evil, such a countenancing of idolatry in it, as he ought to have avoided, that his presence in the temple of Rimmon in the time of worship of that idol was a dangerous example to others, that on such an occasion he ought either to have obtained leave of absence from his master or to have quitted his service. and that even his desire of pardon intimated his consciousness of something sinful in this matter." Matthew Henry takes a stronger line on Naaman's dissimulation, but ultimately tempers it with his usual pastoral insight. See Henry's commentary, Volume 2, page 716, on 2 Kings 5, verse 18. I especially like his following comment, which faithfully answers your question, because in the final sentence he uses the words House of Rimmen analogously for sin. Quote, if in covenanting with God we make a reservation for any known sin which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a defeasance, that is, making void or breaking of his covenant. We must cast away all our transgressions and not accept any House of Rimmen. End of quote. For Calvin's more lengthy response to your name in question, see A Short Treatise Setting Forth What the Faithful Man Must Do When He is Among Papists and He Knows the Truth of the Gospel, 1543. This article can be found in the book Come Out from Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin. Third, in answer to worshipping in a synagogue, You questioned us, Greg Price and myself, regarding worshipping in a synagogue in an attempt to weaken the force of the regulative principle. I would suggest that you read Bushell's treatment of psalmody and synagogue worship in his book, The Songs of Zion, a contemporary case for exclusive psalmody. This is found on pages 68 to 74 of the second edition. Though this was written before Steve Schlissel started pushing his novel views on worship, it does a good job of shooting holes in Steve's synagogue services and those of the early church, destroying the one-to-one identification that Schlissel implies throughout his arguments against the regulative principle. Bushell writes and shows that the temple, rather than the synagogue, is the ultimate source of a number of the most important aspects of Christian worship. Page 72. He also shows that the primary function of the synagogue was instruction, not worship. The Christian Church, however, was a replacement for both the synagogue and temple, and as such it combined in one structure the instructional aspects of the former and the ritualistic aspect of the latter. Page 71. Of course, also incorporating the changes which the New Testament era brought about. Some useful notes on the synagogue are also found on pages 93 and 94 in Samuel Rutherford's The Divine Rite of Church Government and Excommunication, or A Peaceable Dispute for the Perfection of the Holy Scripture in Point of Ceremonies and Church Government, in which the removal of the service book is justified. 1646 Gillespie's Dispute against English Popish Ceremonies, the Naftali edition, deals with some aspects of synagogue worship on pages 290 and 292 and Gillespie even comments, quote, yet the synagogue was tied to observe those and no other than those ceremonies which the word prescribed, end of quote, taken from page 292. It is also interesting to me that if the synagogue was not regulated by some kind of divine command in keeping with the second commandment, which is of perpetual moral force, which was not recorded for us in scripture, which was sometimes the case in the Old Testament economy, 1. that there was no such thing as an uninspired hymn ever sung, and 2. that there was no such thing as an instrumental accompaniment to singing ever employed in the ancient synagogue, taken from Instrumental Music in Christian Worship by Robert Nevin, 1873, page 15 and 16. All those years of supposed deregulation in the synagogue and no innovations. Astounding! Give our modern anti-regulativists and pretended-regulativists a decade and you'll have all sorts of innovations, from instruments and man-made hymns to dance, drama, responsive readings, women preachers, Kool-Aid communion, and a host of other heresies. Were the Jews really that much more holy than men today in restraining themselves from introducing innovations and violating the Second Commandment? Or did they understand something that the modern anti-regulativists don't? On the question of the origin of the synagogue and similar ploys to undermine the historic, classic, Protestant, Presbyterian defense of the Second Commandment, that is, the regulative principle, Dr. R. D. Anderson, in Prophetic Singing in the Corporate Worship of the Church, unpublished manuscript, page 13, has written, quote, modern scholarship has come up with a variety of theories regarding the origin of the synagogue. It has been dated from the time of the exile, from the time of Ezra, or even later. What enables scholars to come up with such divergent theories is the fact that we have very little information to go on. What we do have, however, is a common tradition in the first century that dated synagogue worship back to the time of Moses. Josephus says that Moses ordained that every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it. Likewise, Philo traces the practice of his own day of meeting in synagogues every Sabbath to the command of Moses to set aside the Sabbath for the study of the Scriptures. Important for us is the fact that this explanation of the origin of synagogues is also recorded in the New Testament. When James delivered his speech at the Council of Jerusalem he noted that Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. Acts 15 21 This explanation also fits in with what we have discussed above concerning the command of Leviticus 23 verse 3, for every Israelite to assemble every Sabbath to worship God. End of quote. Since Greg Price is now preparing a book-length defense of the regulative principle, in light of some of the modern attacks on it, including answers to questions surrounding the synagogue and its institution, I will not elaborate further at this time, but here is the outline for Greg's book as it stands at present. Defending the Reformation Regulative Principle of Worship, or Was Synagogue Worship Regulated by God's Revealed Word? First, the Second Commandment, like the First Commandment, is moral, and therefore of perpetual and universal obligation, having been written upon the hearts of all men from the point of creation That is, God has written upon the hearts of all men, not only that he alone is to be worshipped, as is taught in the first commandment, but also that he is to be worshipped only by those means which he has authorized, as taught in the second commandment. Second, the regulative principle of worship is simply an articulation of the second commandment, and therefore is morally binding upon all people from the first man to the last. Since the Regulative Principle of Worship is a part of the moral law of God, it cannot be limited to the ceremonial law. To the contrary, tabernacle temple worship, synagogue worship, and all public worship must be regulated by the Second Commandment, also the Regulative Principle of Worship. Third, the Regulative Principle of Worship defined and defended from Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Fourth, the regulative principle of worship expounded in history, especially its articulation from the First and Second Reformation. Fifth, the Sabbath is a creation ordinance having been instituted as a day of rest and worship at the creation of the world. Genesis 2 verse 1 through 3, Exodus 20 verse 8 through 11. The Sabbath was observed as a weekly day of rest and worship prior to the institution of tabernacle worship. Genesis 2 verse 1 to 3, and Exodus 16 verse 23 through 30. Since God gave one day each week to be dedicated to himself in rest and worship, and since God regulated worship from the very beginning of time, Genesis 4 verse 1 to 7, it is therefore inferred that God's people must have used only worship authorized by God before the regulated worship of the tabernacle was instituted. Worship was in fact regulated by God's authorization prior to the Tabernacle Temple, even though one may search in vain to find the original and explicit authorization of God within the pages of Scripture. A. Blood sacrifices were required by God, though no explicit authorization was recorded. Genesis 4 verse 1 through 7. Thus it must be inferred that God revealed His will concerning blood sacrifices to Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, but did not record his original authorization in scripture. B. Clean animals were to be offered or were offered in sacrifice by Noah rather than unclean animals. Genesis 8 verse 20 and 21. Where does God specifically authorize clean animals and forbid unclean animals in sacrifice? Or where does God identify which animals are clean and which are unclean prior to the Levitical law? it must be inferred that the Lord revealed his will concerning clean and unclean animals to Noah though he did not record the original prescription in scripture. C. Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God and thus performed worship on God's behalf. Genesis 14 verse 18 through 20. Where is the office of a priest instituted prior to Melchizedek? What were his duties as a priest? Abraham paid tithes unto Melchizedek as the priest of God. Hebrews 7 verse 1-10. Where is there any warrant for tithing stated in Scripture prior to Abraham? Therefore it must be inferred that God gave explicit instruction concerning these matters related to worship, although these instructions are not specifically stated in the biblical record. D. In like manner God's people faithfully gathered each Sabbath to worship the Lord in synagogues subsequent to the institution of tabernacle temple worship. Where is synagogue worship specifically authorized in Scripture? It must likewise be inferred that it was explicitly regulated by God, since He authorized their meeting in such assemblies each Sabbath, although that regulation, like the examples above, is not explicitly recorded in Scripture. Seventh, even if, for the sake of argument, tabernacle temple worship alone was explicitly regulated in the Old Testament, That does not alter the fact that New Covenant worship is regulated, according to the Second Commandment and the Regulative Principle of Worship, by the explicit precepts, the approved examples, and the good and necessary deductions derived from Scripture, the light of nature, and the general rules of God's Word, even as all public worship was regulated in the Old Testament. See Mark 7, verse 6 through 13, John 4, verse 24, 1 Corinthians 11 verse 16, 1 Corinthians 14 verse 26 through 40, Ephesians 5 verse 19, Colossians 2 verse 23, 1 Timothy 4 verse 2, Hebrews 10 verse 1, etc. 8. The example of the Lord in worshiping in synagogues during his ministry provides no proof that the Lord approved of unregulated worship outside of temple worship. it must be first demonstrated that the synagogue worship which he attended was not regulated by God's revelation by revelation not recorded in scripture the Lord did indeed forbid his disciples from sitting under the ministry of heretical scribes and Pharisees Matthew 15 verse 13 and 14 Matthew 16 verse 6 and 12 Matthew 23 verse 2 through 36 but he did not forbid his disciples from attending faithful synagogue worship. 9. It has been claimed by the opponents of the regulative principle of worship, quote, Jesus is our regulative principle of worship, end of quote. We agree. However, it is only by his revelation that we know Christ as our regulative principle of worship. 10. What is the biblical alternative to the regulative principle of worship? All views of worship principally lead either to Rome or to Westminster. Thus, that which prevents churches from becoming epistemologically consistent with their Romish views of worship is ultimately preference, expediency, and mere pragmatism, not biblical principle. Lord willing, this book will be ready sometime in the near future and if I remember I will send you a complimentary review copy. Fourth, in answer to sacrificing only to the Lord in the high places. I see nothing in what took place at the high places rightly considered, which militates against the regulative principle correctly understood. The high places were, quote, places of worship, specifically of idolatrous worship. So the title was transferred from the elevation to the sanctuary on the elevation. 1 Kings 11 verse 7 and 14 verse 23. the burning of the high place in 2nd Kings 23 verse 15 and so came to be used of any idolatrous shrine whether constructed on an elevation or not note 2nd Kings chapter 16 verse 4 2nd Chronicles 28 verse 4 the high places are distinguished from the hills so the high places in the cities 2nd Kings 17 verse 9 and 2nd Chronicles 21 verse 1 could have stood anywhere while in Ezekiel 1616 a portable structure seems to be in point." End of quote. Quoted from the International Standard Bible Dictionary published by Hendrickson 1939 and 1956, reprinted 1994, Volume 3, page 1390. Furthermore, the International Study Bible Dictionary notes, The opposition to the High Places had many motives. When used for the worship of other gods, their objectionable character is obvious, but even the worship of Yah in the High Places was intermixed with heathen practices. Hosea 4 verse 14, etc. In Amos 5 verse 21 through 24, etc., sacrifice in the High Places is denounced because it is regarded as a substitute for righteousness in exactly the same way that sacrifice in the temple is denounced in Jeremiah 7 verse 21 through 24 or sacrifice in the high places may be denounced under the best of conditions because in violation of the law of one's sanctuary 2nd Chronicles 33 verse 17 etc. End of quote. Taken from page 1391 One aspect of this question, with which we must be careful if we are to determine a faithful answer to the biblical view of the high places, and which may be confusing to those who have not been yet given better insight into the regulative principle of worship, at least to the level which most of the reformers seem to enjoy, has to do with the historical chronology of worship in high places. For example, in 1 Kings, the practice of using the high places is treated as legitimate before the construction of the temple, 1 Kings 3 verse 2 through 4, but after that it is condemned unequivocally. Taken from the International Standard Bible Dictionary, page 1391. In short, worship, contrary to the second commandment or what we will call the regulative principle, in the high places brought national judgment upon the covenanted people of God in the Old Testament. For much scriptural corroboration, see the second column, page 1393 of volume 3 in the International Standard Bible Dictionary, article on the High Places. Our modern Reformed and Evangelical communities are much like Israel, to give the moderns the benefit of the doubt, when she worshipped Jehovah in the High Places. Reformed and Evangelical defection from Biblical and Reformed attainment concerning worship is of such long-standing and has become so much a matter of habit, or the tradition of the elders, Mark 7 verse 9, that she denounces those faithful servants of Christ sent to rebuke her and overthrow her idols. The International Standard Bible Dictionary, page 1391 notes, quote, the practice has been of such long-standing that Hezekiah's destruction of the high places, 2 Kings 18 verse 4, could be cited by Rabshakee as an act of apostasy from Jehovah. 2 Kings 18.22 2 Chronicles 32.12 Isaiah 36.7 I think we need to pray for the success of our modern paleo-presbyterian Hezekiahs and Josiahs 2 Kings 23.19-22 and the overthrow of the modern neo-presbyterian and evangelical rapture keys. We also need to mark the words and actions of our faithful Reformation fathers, Philippians 3 verse 16 and 17, and as noted throughout my letters, who have already fought and won many of the same battles against idolatry and apostasy which are being rekindled today. Note Gillespie's answer to your question. Whereas many of the kings of Judah and Israel did either themselves worship in the groves and the high places, or else at least suffer the people to do so, howsoever they might have alleged specious reasons for excusing themselves, as namely, that they gave not dishonor to any strange gods, but to the Lord only, that they chose these places only to worship in wherein God was of old seen in worship by the patriarchs, that the groves and the high places added a most amiable splendor and beauty to the worship of God, and that they did consecrate these places for divine worship in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to God's honor, yet notwithstanding, because this thing was not commanded of God, neither came it into his heart, he would admit no excuses, but ever challenges it as a grievous fault in the government of those kings, that those high places were not taken away and that the people still sacrificed in the high places. From all which examples we learn how highly God was and is displeased with men for adding any other sacred ceremonies to those which he himself has appointed. " In answer to Hezekiah's songs as a warrant for uninspired hymns in worship, you, outside of our recent letters and others, have often appealed to Hezekiah for a warrant to sing uninspired songs in public worship. Because this is a common, and I believe, fleshy appeal, please note the following from pages 85 to 86 in Stillwater's Revival Books' republication of The Psalms in Worship by McNaughter. 1907, reprinted 1992. Professor Heron claims the songs of Hezekiah were sung. This claim is based on a line contained in Hezekiah's song of thanksgiving composed on the occasion of his recovery from sickness. Jehovah is ready to save me therefore we will sing my songs with stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house of Jehovah. Isaiah 37 verse 20, revised version. The Hebrew word here rendered sing whenever it occurs in the Bible except three times is translated stringed instruments. The word rendered we will sing should be rendered we will strike. Justinius' Hebrew lexicon gives no other meaning for it. The verse is properly translated Jehovah is ready to save me therefore my stringed instruments we will strike all the days of my life in the house of Jehovah. Cheen, Dillich, George Adam Smith, O'Reilly, Blake, the Cambridge Bible, the Encyclopedia Biblica, and indeed all modern commentators translate the verse as I have given it. Professor Heron's argument is based on what is certainly a mistranslation of this verse." This rendering would be in accord with what we know of all the great reformations of Old Testament times. As to the biblical evidence outside the Psalter, the various references to praise in the Old Testament show conclusively that the Psalms were the matter of the songs. At the dedication of the temple in Solomon's time, and again in the days of Zerubbabel, when the foundation of the new temple was laid, the Psalms were sung. 2 Chronicles 5 verse 13, Ezra 3 verse 11 and 12, And again, they were sung when good King Hezekiah, in a reformation that is worth more than all the history of the years of Israel's backsliding, as a testimony to what had divine appointment, did everything according to the commandment of David, for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. 2 Chronicles 29 verse 25. Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. 2 Chronicles 29 verse 30. The singers came up from captivity with Ezra and Nehemiah. We are told that both the singers and the porters kept the charge of their God according to the commandment of David and of Solomon his son. For in the days of David and Asaph of old there were chief of the singers and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto God. Nehemiah 12 verse 45 and 46. These reformations and rededications are the best witness of what was the real practice required by the Lord for they then sought to do everything according to the divine pattern. The objection that songs outside of the Psalter were used in God's worship as the songs of Moses, of Hezekiah, and of Habakkuk is no positive sanction for singing extra-biblical hymns. And if there were uninspired songs used at the time They are only exception and infractions that prove the rule." End of quote. Taken from The Psalms are the Divinely Authorized and Exclusive Manual of Praise by Kennedy as cited in McNaughter in his book The Psalms in Worship, page 62. Do you think that things were more in order ecclesiastically in Calvin's Geneva, Knox's Scotland, and during the Covenanted Second Reformation than today among the OPC, PCA, CRC, etc.? What about the times of Old Testament Reformation versus the days of Old Testament backsliding? Even though it is unlikely that uninspired songs outside of those God provided for his people and possibly still inspired outside of the Psalms were ever sung in public ecclesiastical services, that they may have been very sporadically appeared at times of declension and apostasy is no argument for their lawful use, much less an argument for writing and singing uninspired songs today. This is not to mention that most, or possibly even all, of the modern uninspired hymns are unbalanced and full, to a greater or lesser degree, of heretical statements. But this is not surprising, because the hymn writers often held to various heresies themselves. from Wesley's Arminianism to Watts' Denial of the Trinity and many hymns written by Papists, Universalists, and sundry other malignants. For your information, Watts' Denial of the Trinity can be found in his works, Volume 7, pages 476-477, Leeds edition. It may also be of interest to you to know that when Watts was subverting Reformation-exclusive psalmody with his imitation of David's Psalms, His stated purpose was to make David a Christian. He also said that there are words in the Psalms which ought never to be found on the lips of a Christian. Information on Watts, gleaned from a letter by Jim Dodson. Our modern hymn mongers fear not to compose their own ditties for public worship, while the apostles and the Lord himself, while he walked the earth, saw no need to add to God's already existing hymnal, that is, the Psalter. Why is it that heretics from Barda Saints, a Syrian Gnostic in the 3rd century, Arius, 336 AD, the Donatists of Augustine's days, the Anabaptists during the Reformation, Wesley, Watts, and the Frames of our day, always want to add to God's finished Psalter? Why is it that the Council of Laodicea, about 360 AD, The Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D., the Calvinistic Reformers and their creeds all oppose the introduction of uninspired hymns. Were the most orthodox defenders of the Church always wrong on this question? And the heretics and the compromised always right? Are you walking in the footsteps of the flock? Song of Solomon 1 verse 8. Who really defends the classic Protestant and Apostolic position today? see the Psalms in the Post-Apostolic Church in the Psalms of Worship page 159-168 for more. Walk about Zion, and go round about her. Tell the towers thereof. Mark ye her bulwarks. Consider her palaces, that ye may tell it to the generation following. For this God is our God for ever and ever. He will be our guide even unto death. Psalm 48 verse 12-14 Quote number 15, a short article by Larry Berger, Jr. The Biblical and Logical Necessity of Uninspired Creeds Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 1 verse 13 And he gave pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. till we all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine Ephesians 4 verse 11 through 14 also they caused the people to understand the law and the people stood in their place so they read in the book in the law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading. Nehemiah 8, verse 7 and 8. To see the unavoidable necessity of uninspired creeds, consider the following conversation between Hans, a paleopresbyterian, and Franz, a neopresbyterian. Hans, we are studying the Westminster Confession of Faith. Want to join us? Franz, no, I don't give heed to the words of men like you do. Hands, what do you mean? Friends, I go by the Bible. I can't rely on the words of mere uninspired men. Hands, me too. That's why we're studying the Confession. You should join us. It'll be very edifying. Friends, wait a minute. I just told you that I only go by the Bible and yet you have just equated the study of this Westminster Confession with the study of the Scriptures? Hands, as I just said, I only go by the Bible too, so I'm not going to pay any attention to what you've just said. You're not inspired after all. Friends, of course I'm not inspired, but what I said was right because it was biblical. Hands, how could it be biblical if it was merely what you, an uninspired man, told me? I only listen to the inspired words of the Bible. Isn't it lording it over my conscience to tell me to accept your uninspired words as though they were the very inspired words of God? Friends, oh come on! I may not have quoted chapter and verse, but I was telling you what the Bible means. That's why you have to pay attention to it. Hands, are you saying the meaning of the Bible, even if explained in the uninspired words of uninspired men, is still binding? In fact, as binding as the very words written in the Bible? Friends, well yes, that is what I'm saying. The meaning of the Bible, though stated in different words, has the same authority as the exact words found there. And since I'm telling you that the meaning of the Bible is not to give heed to the uninspired words of men, you still have to receive it as though those exact words I've spoken were written in the pages of Scripture. Hans, wait a minute. How is what you've just said any different from the Westminster Confession? After all, the writers of the Confession were only putting forth what they thought was the meaning of the Bible. Friends, well, um, or, uh, um, hands, I know of one difference. They were all preeminently qualified to expound the Word of God. They were recognized as having these gifts by various churches that delegated them to sit at the Westminster Assembly. Any scholar who knows anything about Protestant history knows that these men were the cream of the crop and that almost certainly there has never been since that time and maybe even up to that time except for the apostles themselves one body containing so many godly and learned men. I don't think you possess the same qualifications at least not yet. Friends, hmm good point. Hands, furthermore the Holy Spirit says in Ephesians 4 that Christ has given to the church teachers as a powerful and necessary means to building up the body of Christ into a perfect or complete man. Obviously these teachers do not have the gift of inspiration and yet the Spirit didn't view this as a challenge to the sufficiency of Scripture but rather as a necessary outgrowth of it. This is because He desires that we know the meaning of the Bible not just the bare words. As R.L. Dabney said He who would consistently banish creeds must silence all preaching and reduce the teaching of the Church to the recital of the exact words of Holy Scripture without note or comment. And just because these then lived in the past doesn't mean that they're not a gift from God to us today. The Bible everywhere speaks of the Church as one body throughout all history. Galatians 3 verse 23 and 24, Galatians 4 verse 1 through 3, Psalm 66 verse 6, Hosea 12 verse 4 and Deuteronomy 5 verse 2 and 3. Therefore, the astute teachers of the past are our teachers as well, thanks to God's gracious preservation of their writings. Actually, because these men were on the crest of the waves of Reformation and not in the trough of apostasy as we are today, we ought to pay more attention to them than to contemporary teachers. This is because all of us, including our teachers, have been blinded by our culture's wretched and extreme departure from the Lord Jesus Christ. " Franz, what time did you say you were meeting? I believe the meaning of scriptures requires that I attend. Quote number 16, a short article entitled, Some comments for those who attend idolatrous worship. Where so ever we perceive any people worship God truly after his word, There we may be certain the Church of Christ to be, unto which we ought to associate ourselves and to desire, with the prophet David, to praise God in the midst of his church. But if we behold through the iniquity of the times congregations to be made with counterfeit religion, otherwise than the word of God teaches, we ought then, if we are required to be companions thereof, to say again with David, I have hated the synagogue of the malignant and will not sit with the wicked. In the Revelation, the church of Ephesus is highly commended because she tried such as said they were apostles and were not indeed and therefore would not abide the company of them. Further, God commanded his people by the mouth of his prophet Amos that they should not seek Bethel neither into Gilgal where idolatry is used. Also, we must consider that our bodies are the temple of God and whosoever, as Saint Paul teaches, profanes the temple of God, him the Lord will destroy. May we then take the temple of Christ and make it the member of an harlot? All strange religion and idolatry is counted as whoredom by the prophets, and more detestable in the sight of God than the adultery of the body. Therefore the princes of the earth in the revelation of John are said to commit fornication when they are in love with false religion and follow the same. How then, by any means, may a Christian man think it tolerable to be present at the popish private mass, which is the very profanation of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, and at other idolatrous worshipings and rites, which are not after the word of God, but rather to the derogation thereof by setting man's traditions above God's precepts, since God by His word judges all strange religion, which is not according to His institution, fornication and idolatry. Some fondly, that is foolishly, think that the presence of the body is not material, so that, that is, as long as the heart does not consent to their wicked doings. But such persons little consider what St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, commanding them to glorify God in body as well as soul. Moreover, we can do no greater injury to the true Church of Christ than to seem to have forsaken her and to disallow her by cleaving to her adversary, whereby it appears to others who are weak that we allow the same, and so, contrary to the word, give a great offence to the church of God, and outwardly slander, as much as men may, the truth of Christ. Better it were for him to have a millstone tied about his neck, and to be cast into the bottom of the sea. Such are traitors to the truth, like unto Judas, who with a kiss betrayed Christ. Quoted from John Philpot, Martyr for Christ, 1555. David knew not such shifts as worldly wise men imagine nowadays that they may keep their hearts pure and clean unto God, how be it their bodies danced with the devil. Not so, dear brethren, not so. The temple of God has nothing to do with idols. Quoted from John Knox, 1554. Neither can any good intentions or a loving heart to God's glory and zeal for him excuse or legitimate any worship he is not appointed. Take heed, therefore, of pleading good intentions or a good meaning in God's worship. Who seemed to be more excusable than Uzza, yet God struck him suddenly dead for that transgression? If people were truly sensible of this, they would not so revile and rage at a reformation as they do. What is more cheering and rejoicing to a Godly man, to a true Godly man, than to see the pure administration of all church worship? And on the other side, nothing doth cut and pierce the heart of a carnal superstitious man more than to have his superstitions removed. Then they think all religion is removed with it. Well, howsoever thy intentions are, good, as thou sayest, yet God accounts it so much worship done to devils. It is said of Jeroboam, his worship was to devils. Alas, did the people think so? Were not their intentions for the true God? But God calleth it worshiping of devils, for all false worship is brought in by the instigation of the devils. Quoted from Anthony Burgess, 1652. An uncomfortable question for comfortable Presbyterians. Are you dancing with the devil by being present at or participating in worship which the Lord has not commanded? Quote 17. A warning against the false and dangerous views of James Jordan concerning worship. A book review of Kevin Reed's Canterbury Tales by Reg Barrow, 1996. The nearer a false worship approaches to a true one, the more dangerous it is. Israel came nearer to the true worship of God than the heathens. Now the prophet saith not, Though the heathens be idolaters, yet let not Judah be so too. But though Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend. There was more danger that Judah should be drawn aside by Israel than that they should be drawn aside by any of the heathen. And so there is more danger that we, at this day, should be drawn aside by those that join with us in many things that are right, than by papists who are hateful to us, and whose ways we see to be abominable. There is not so much danger, especially for those that profess godliness, of being drawn aside by those who grossly violate the laws of God, as by brethren that join with us in many things that are right, and come very near to the true worship of God. We must not approach places calculated to draw us into sin, especially to false worship. It is dangerous to indulge curiosity in visiting places of idolatry. Comments on Hosea 4 verse 15 by Jeremiah Burroughs, 1599-1646, cited in The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness Magazine, volume 1, number 19. September 10, 1993, pages 416 and 417. Published by Covenanted Reform Presbyterian Publishing, P.O. Box 131, Hottstown, Pennsylvania, 1964, USA. Reed's book, The Canterbury Tales, an extended review and commentary based upon the Geneva Papers, interacts with James Jordan's Geneva Papers on Worship. It is an excellent expose demonstrating how Jordan's views on worship are seriously flawed and how his writings, quote, often show more charity toward papists than toward the Reformed faith, end of quote, from page 28 of Canterbury Tales. Reed wades through the many contradictions found in Jordan's writings to show that his corruption of the Reformed faith is most evident in three major areas. First, the repudiation of the Reformed regulative principle of worship. Second, the attempt to introduce superstitions and unwarranted practices into the church. And third, the rejection of confessional Presbyterianism. Page 3, Canterbury Tales. Elaborating, Reed notes that, quote, The primary indication of the Tyler, this was first written in 1984, corruption of worship is seen in the repudiation of the reformed regulative principle of worship. This repudiation is manifested in four ways. By false portrayals of the regulative principle, compared Jordan's sociology of the church, chapter 10, with William Cunningham's, the reformers and the theology of the reformation, Banner of Truth, page 27-46, or Carlo's Ears, War Against the Idols, The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin, Cambridge University Press, pages 195-275. By a failure to make proper distinctions within the regulative principle, by a faulty pairing of Reformed and Anabaptist notions, and by a failure to deal exegetically with the scriptural position of the Reformers and the Reformed confessions on the topic of worship. Moreover, Mr. Jordan does not stop with the repudiation of the Reformed regulative principle. He goes on with a program to reintroduce within the Church many superstitions and unwarranted practices." End of quote. Page 4 and 24 of Canterbury Tales. The escalation in apostasy from sinful theory to wicked practice noted in the last sentence is not surprising, for as history, inspired and uninspired, teaches, when you reject spiritual institutions of worship, you must of necessity replace them with some form of man-made idolatrous ceremony or rite. The rejection of the Reformation regulative principle of worship by Jordan and those who, like the Tylerites, follow his lead, always leaves one dusting off the ancient monuments to Antichrist and singing the songs of false prophets from the past. For example, witness Jordan's denunciation of, quote, traditional Puritanism and Presbyterianism, end of quote. Quote, thus, for traditional Puritanism and Presbyterianism, the fact that the New Testament books nowhere explicitly command the use of musical instruments in worship proves for them that it is forbidden to use musical instruments in worship. This in spite of the overwhelming biblical evidence in both the old, that is ceremonial law, Reg Barrow, and New Testament, find one verse, Reg Barrow, that God wants musical instruments used in his worship. End of quote. Page 209 of Sociology. Compare this with the standard Reformation response pointing out how the introduction of Old Testament ceremonial law into New Testament worship is not only idolatrous, but a denial of the work of Christ, the ceremonial law being abrogated. John Gerardo sets forth the views of John Calvin. Quote, To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery, says Calvin, unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving on Psalm 71 verse 22. He says again, with respect to the Tabaret, harp and psaltery we have formally observed and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark that the Levites under the law were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God, yet having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments until the coming of Christ. But now, when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part, to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time." He further observes, We are to remember that the worship of God was never understood to consist in such outward services, which were only necessary to help forward a people as yet weak and rude in knowledge in the spiritual worship of God. A difference is to be observed in this respect between His people under the Old and under the New Testament. For now that Christ has appeared and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation. From this it appears that the papists, as I shall have occasion to show elsewhere, in employing instrumental music, cannot be said so much to imitate the practice of God's ancient people as to ape it in a senseless and absurd manner, exhibiting a silly delight in that worship of the Old Testament which was figurative and terminated with the Gospel. on Psalm 92 verse 1. End of quote. Taken from Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, page 63 and 64. It should also be noted, because of the almost complete loss of a reformed hermeneutic regarding worship in our day, that running to Revelation for support of the use of musical instruments in public worship is an idea long ago rejected by consistent Reform exegetes. David Steele's testimony in his comments on Revelation 14 verse 2 and 3 gives one of the reasons why. Quote, Let the children of Zion be joyful in their king. Let the high praise of God be in their mouth. Psalm 149 verse 2 and 6. Unterrified by the roaring of the beasts of prey, these followers of the Lamb lift their voices in unison. And whether on mountains or in valleys, in dens or in caves of the earth, their songs of praise ascend to the ears of the Lord of Sabeoth. The symphony is heightened by the voice of harpers harping on their harps. And if any person be so ignorant as to ground an argument on these words for the use of instrument in the worship of God, consistency will require him to take his position on the literal Mount Zion with a literal lamb." taken from Notes on the Apocalypse, published by Covenanted Reform Presbyterian Publishing, 1870, forthcoming, pages 196 and 197. The rejection of Reformation worship and the road to Rome is often paid with incremental deviations from truth following down the broad path of worship accepted by earlier deformations of biblically regulated worship. This is also illustrated by Reed when he writes, quote, it is also quite telling that Mr. Jordan acknowledges his affinity with Lutheran and Anglican forms of worship in preference to others. Geneva papers number 25. Lutheran Anglican worship is built on an entirely different presupposition than Reformed worship. The Lutheran Anglican position holds that we may worship God by various means as long as we are doing exactly as long as what we are doing is not explicitly forbidden in scripture." End of quote. Page 25 of Canterbury Tales. This exact Lutheran deviation is also adopted by Jordan in his book, The Sociology of the Church. After paying whip service to the regulative principle on page 208, he then argues for the introduction into worship of some of the ensigns of Antichrist on the basis of what the Bible quote, does not forbid, end of quote, page 217 sociology. Moreover, he again completely forgets his earlier pretended adherence to the regulative principle when he states that, quote, there is no biblical principle against, end of quote, page 217 sociology, whatever idolatrous innovations with which he would tyrannize the church. This is pure equivocation. The Regulative Principle calls for God's institution of elements of worship. Jordan calls for the exact opposite when he asks where the Bible forbids his innovations. In other words, Reid continues, exposing Jordan's explicit rejection of the Regulative Principle and adoption of Lutheran Anglican notions, they don't have to produce scriptural warrant for their practices as in Reformed worship. Rather, the opponents of the practice must prove that it is wrong. The implication is that God has not left us a specific pattern for worship. He has left the Church great freedom to establish rites and ceremonies for worship." Taken from page 25 of Canterbury Tales. Moreover, Jordan is not shy about the fact that he likes to wallow in the mud outside of the harlot daughters of Antichrist's latrine, writing, As I study scripture, I find that Lutheran and Anglican churches are more biblical in their worship despite some problems." End of quote. Page 210 of Sociology. In this vein, William Cunningham long ago, 1862, noted the propensity of the carnal nature when it is bent on inventing man-made ceremony and humanly embellished worship. Quote, Of the views generally held by the Reformers on the subject of the organization of the Church, there are two which have always been very offensive to men of a loose and latitudinarian tendency, that is, the alleged unlawfulness of introducing into the worship and government of the Church anything which is not positively warranted by Scripture, and the permanent binding obligation of a particular form of Church government." taken from Leaders of the Reformation in The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, Banner of Truth, reprinted 1989, page 31. The very problem Cunningham refers to concerning loose and latitudinarian tendencies is again in our day being exhibited by Jordan and exposed and rebuked by Reed in his Canterbury Tales some 122 years later. Furthermore, should Jordan and all those who follow him continue to slide away from the Reformation attainments of Christ's Bride, especially the great victories of the Second Reformation, continuing down the path he is now on, promoting his revolution against traditional Puritan and Presbyterian worship, and the reconstruction of the mystery of iniquity, Calvin's stern rebuke, Titus 1 verse 13, found at the end of this quotation by Carlos Eyre, in his War Against the Idols, page 219 and 220, will most certainly become applicable. Quote, Calvin maintains that the human heart is also led into the error of idolatry through its love of ceremony and ritual. A good study of Calvin's view of ceremonies is T.W. Street's John Calvin on Adiaphora, PhD dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1954, pages 208 through 216. Calvin attacks the excessive and improper use of ceremonies by the Catholic Church as a denial of spiritual worship. First, because it is an abrogation of God's commands. Secondly, because it often entails the improper use of material paraphernalia. And finally, because it is often taken to be some sort of automatic communication between God and man. Humanly devised ceremonies are a bold affront to God's power, honor, and freedom. Through them, men attempt to worship God as they please and to bind his power to specific situations. Consequently, Calvin deals with ceremonies as dangerous distractions that only serve to confuse man and rob God of his majesty. Calvin also carries his analysis of the psychology of idolatry to the social level. We see, he says, how by mutual persuasion men urge one another to defend superstition and worship of idols. Calvin asserts that the more the truth of God is manifested, the more obstinately man persists in following his own way against God, as if he intends to wage war against Him. Calvin is convinced that the perversion of man is such that since the beginning of the Reformation there has been an increase in idolatry not a decrease. Commentary of Isaiah Calvin attributes this rebellion against God to form a mass hysteria in which idolaters take comfort from each other's encouragement and from the security that comes from belonging to a large group. Calvin also argues that people remain steeped in idolatry out of habit and a false sense of awe resulting from the antiquity of their beliefs. It is very difficult, he indicates, to believe that anything ancient can be wrong. The older the idolatry, therefore, the harder it is to displace from men's hearts." Taken from Sermons on Deuteronomy. Zwingli has also made a similar reference to this phenomenon in De vera et falsa religion, Latin works 3.337. Sounding a bit like the loser of the table talk, though somewhat more restrained, Calvin expands upon this theme by comparing idolaters to latrine cleaners. Just as a maestri fifi mocks those who hold their noses in his presence because he has handled filth for so long that he can no longer smell his own foulness, so likewise do idolaters make light of those who are offended by a stench they cannot recognize themselves. Hardened by habit, they sit in their own excrement and yet believe they are surrounded by roses. Taken from Excuse Note. Maistre Fifi is a 16th century French slang term for a latrine or sewer cleaner. End of quote. It may also interest some of you that Kevin Reed is presently gathering together a body of Calvin's most important sermons as referred to in War Against the Idols. These sermons, chosen as an example of Calvin's iconoclastic zeal, include some of the Great Reformers' most classic statements concerning worship and separation from idolatry. Moreover, most of these sermons have never been translated into English before. When the translation work is done and the book has been prepared for press, these sermons will be released to the public as a hardcover book. At present, though it has not been confirmed, the title for this book will be, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin. But back to the discussion at hand. For a positive statement of biblically regulated worship, which will clear the air of the stench of Roman Catholic and Lutheran Anglican idolatry, taken from the greatest family of uninspired documents ever produced by man, and exhibiting the height of the Second Reformation faithfulness, please note the finely crafted explanations of the duties required, sins forbidden and reasons annexed to the Second Commandment, as found in the Westminster Larger Catechism, adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, July 2nd, 1648, as a part of the covenanted uniformity in worship required by this Assembly's international covenant with Christ, as sworn in the Solemn Legion Covenant, August 17, 1643. Quote, Question 108. What are the duties required in the Second Commandment? Answer. The duties required in the Second Commandment are the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in His Word, particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ. the reading, preaching and hearing of the word, the administration and receiving of the sacraments, church government and discipline, the ministry and maintenance thereof, religious fasting, swearing by the name of God and vowing unto Him, as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship, and according to each one's place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry. Question 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? Answer. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving any religious worship not instituted by God himself, tolerating a false religion, the making any representation of God or of all or of any of the three persons either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature, whatsoever, all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it, the making of any representation of famed deities, and all worship of them or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever, simony, sacrilege, all neglect, contempt, hindering and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed. Question 110. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it? Answer. The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments, are, besides God's sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom, and counting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto diverse generations, and esteeming the observers of it, such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations." If the Covenanted Presbyterianism of the Westminster Divines is not the antithesis of what James Jordan is putting forth, I could not tell you what is. And it is here again we find, in the light of this information, reads Canterbury Tales to be most helpful. For at this point, Reed exhibits the practical consequences of the rejection of Reformation worship, citing examples of the rotten fruit that inevitably appears when you have a bad theological tree. Quote, consequently, we now find the Tyler community sporting an entire wardrobe bearing designer labels of Rome and Canterbury. It is fashionable to support ministerial vestments the litany, the ecclesiastical year with saints days, the sign of the cross, and public healing services." End of quote. Page 24 of Canterbury Tales. Since these shenanigans began some time ago under the guise of a superior understanding of the regulative principle, promoted primarily by Jordan, some have been more bold, honest, and logically consistent about their rejection of Reformation worship. Gary North, for instance, recently, that is February 94, called the Regulative Principle a Presbyterian folk myth, in the Christian Reconstruction Newsletter, Volume 18, Number 1. Of course, this apostasy does not end with aberrant views of worship. Fareed also notes that, quote, in the Geneva Papers, Number 28, Mr. Jordan openly states his view that the Westminster Confession is a corpse a dead symbol with a main value for study, in order to help the church write a new confession, a rather open denial of confessional Presbyterianism." End of quote. Taken from page 27, Canterbury Tales. On this point, also see Wagner's Paleopresbyterianism versus Neopresbyterianism. In it, he shows how attacks upon the original Westminster Confession are one of the two major marks of the neo-Presbyterian rejection of classic or historic Presbyterianism. Here, more than just about any other place, Jordan serves as a sober warning from God against those who would remove the old landmarks. Theology is a seamless garment, a systematic whole. Start pulling out specific threads and you will end up with a garment full of holes, not a holy garment, and your nakedness will be evident to all when the judgment comes. In fact, when compared to the historical testimony of our Reformation forefathers regarding the regulative principle, Jordan, the new emperor of innovation, has already shown that he has been stripped of his Reformation clothes theologically. Reed also notes that despite biblical rebuke, Jordan continues to spread his anti-Reformation views, writing, Quote, Mr. Jordan is no longer associated with the congregation at Tyler, says Reg Barrow, but has continued to spread his aberrant opinions among Presbyterian churches. End of quote. Page 29 of Canterbury Tales. Scripture tells us plainly and without equivocation how to treat those who profess Christianity but deny apostolic doctrine and are obstinate in their error. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. Romans 16 verse 17. Furthermore, we are told, cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. Proverbs 19 verse 27. Because Jordan has had some influence among the more ignorant and anti-historic segments of the Reformed community, And because he continues to spread his poison concerning worship, we would all do well to heed the scriptural warning. This Reformation audio resource is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. There is no copyright on this material, and we encourage you to reproduce it and pass it on to your friends. Many free resources, as well as our complete mail order catalog, containing classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books at great discounts is on the web at www.swrb.com We can also be reached by email at swrb at swrb.com by phone at area code 780-450-3730 by fax at area code 780 4681096 or by mail at 4710-37A Edmonton Alberta Canada T6L3T5 If you do not have a web connection please request a free printed catalog